FUQQ.EU

Friday, 30 December 2016

In this post I want to draw attention to a key question relating to the Brexit Appeal before the United Kingdom Supreme Court which, so far as I can find, has not been considered by the Supreme Court.

The key information which underlies the question which I ask in this post is to be found in the statement of the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster during the Second Reading of the European Communities Bill on 15th February 1972.

I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House
that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has
consented to place Her interest and prerogative, so far as they are
affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of
the Bill.

I am aware of no other occasion on which the Sovereign has "placed at the disposal of Parliament" the Sovereign's "interest and prerogative".

Am I correct in thinking that Sir Geoffrey Rippon's statement means that Parliament (i.e. the House of Commons and the House of Lords) has control of all aspects of the Royal Prerogative as it applies to matters which relate to the European Union (as it now is)?

If so, it seems to me that Theresa May's plan to use the Royal Prerogative to notify a decision of the kind expressed in Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union is dead in the water.

If the Queen has placed "at the disposal of Parliament" her "interest and prerogative" it seems to me that Parliament has full control of any use of what might in other circumstances be available to the Government by means of the Royal Prerogative.

It seems to me that the Supreme Court must consider this important new information before it hands down its judgement in the Brexit Appeal.

Friday, 29 January 2016

On 25th November 2015 I wrote to Police Scotland and the National Crime Agency reporting my suspicion that Jeremy Wright QC MP, the Attorney General of England and Wales, had committed the common law offence of murder with respect to the killing on 21st August 2015 of Reyaad Khan, Ruhul Amin and an unnamed third person.

Here is the text of the letter:

25th November 2015

To:

Keith Bristow, Chief Executive, National Crime Agency

Chief Constable Sir Stephen House, Police Scotland

[By email]

Gentlemen,

Suspected serious
crimes by Jeremy Wright MP and others

Murder of Reyaad Khan, Ruhul Amin and another on 21st
August 2015

“Genocide” contrary to s51 of the International Criminal Court
Act 2001 and s1 of the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001

Misconduct in public office by Jeremy Wright MP – concealment
of British Military Terrorism etc

Terrorism offences by Jeremy Wright MP

URGENT need to
prevent further similar crimes

Misconduct in
public office by Robert Buckland MP

I write to report to you in your respective roles as Chief
Executive of the National Crime Agency and Chief Constable of Police Scotland
suspected serious crimes by Attorney General Jeremy Wright MP and Solicitor
General Robert Buckland MP.

By a quirk of law the suspected murder and suspected
“genocide” offences by Mr. Wright et al
are criminal offences in both English Law and Scots Law, hence this unusual
manner of reporting the suspected crimes.

The most URGENT aspect of the matters to which I wish to
draw your joint attention is prevention of further criminal acts of unlawful
klling, “genocide” or terrorism.

The matters which fall to be carefully considered by you are
complex.

An unprecedented
situation

To the best of my knowledge it is unprecedented for law
enforcement officers in the United Kingdom to be asked to investigate a serving
Attorney General and Solicitor General of England and Wales for suspected
serious criminal offences.

I believe that your duty as law enforcement officers of the
Crown is clear.

The suspected crimes by Jeremy Wright MP and Robert Buckland
MP should be honestly, diligently and fairly investigated in accordance with
Law notwithstanding any political issues that may apply.

Relevance of the
Coronation Oath

In 1953 in her Coronation Oath the Sovereign made a
commitment to govern in accordance with Law.

It seems to me that the Queen is by that Oath personally
bound by Law as it stood in 1953 and by Law at every point of time thereafter.

Conceptually, “Her Majesty’s Government” draws its authority
from the Queen.

Given that the Sovereign has bound herself to govern in accordance
with Law, any body which draws its authority from the Sovereign is, so it seems
to me, similarly bound to act in accordance with Law.

In other words, HM Government is routinely bound by Law,
whether or not it is explicitly stated in any Act that the Crown is so bound.

That line of argument is, in my view, important in correctly
interpreting the applicability of the Terrorism Act 2000, considered later in
this letter.

The interaction of
domestic Law and International Law – principles

For an action to be lawful it seems to me that it requires,
in the context of the matters where International Law might apply, to be lawful
in both domestic Law and International Law.

The interaction of
domestic Law and International Law – in practice

In 2003 the advice given by the Attorney General of the
time, Lord Goldsmith was that the proposed Iraq War was lawful in both domestic
Law and in International Law.

The Attorney General in 2003 recognised the need to comply
with both domestic Law and International Law.

However, with respect to the suspected murder of Reyaad Khan
et al on 21st August 2015 no mention of compliance with domestic Law
is made by the Prime Minister in his statement of 7th September 2015
to the House of Commons.

There is no indication that domestic Law was considered by
Jeremy Wright in his role as Attorney General.

“Terrorism” in UK
Law

In UK Law “terrorism” is defined in Section 1 of the
Terrorism Act 2000.

For the purposes of this letter I can restate the meaning of
Section 1 as it applies to the matters in hand as follows:

“Where firearms and/or explosives
are used, an act anywhere in the world is terrorism if it results in serious
injury and/or death and is carried out for a political purpose”.

Of course, it is the less easily understood definition in
Statute, which requires to be applied by you during assessment and investigation of the
matters raised in this letter.

When restated as above it is clear that a necessary
implication of s1 of the Act is that British military action in the Middle East
is, in fact, British Military Terrorism.

Similar straightforward analysis of the meaning of s1 of the
Terrorism Act 2000 leads to the conclusion that United States Military
Terrorism and French Military Terrorism also exist.

The relevance of such an analysis of the Terrorism Act 2000
will become clear later with respect to the suspected misconduct in public
office by Mr. Wright and Mr. Buckland.

Murder of Reyaad
Khan and others on 21st August 2015 by Jeremy Wright MP and others

On 21st August 2015 Reyaad Khan, a British
citizen, was premeditatedly killed by the Royal Air Force.

In a statement to the House of Commons on 7th
September 2015, the Prime Minister made it clear that advice from the Attorney
General was an essential prerequisite for the air strike which killed Reyaad
Khan, Ruhul Amin and an unnamed third victim.

Unlawful killing of a British Citizen abroad is triable
under English Law and under Scots Law:

For English Law see s9 of
the Offences Against the Person Act 1861

For Scots Law see s11 of
the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.

It seems to me that the role of the Attorney General was
pivotal in the unlawful killing of Reyaad Khan, and by virtue of the respective
concepts of “joint enterprise” (English Law) and “art and part” (Scots Law). a
charge of murder is correct.

Such alternative charges seem to me to underestimate Mr.
Wright’s role in the unlawful killing of Reyaad Khan and others.

“Genocide” by
Jeremy Wright and others contrary to s51 of the International Criminal Court
Act 2001 and s1 of the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001

Since September 2014 it has been UK Government policy to
destroy the religious group Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

As part of the implementation of that policy members of ISIL
have been killed. The premeditated killing of Reyaad Khan is a case in point.

It might be objected that ISIL is not a “religious group” in
view, for example, of its violence. I would point out that since the 7th
Century violence has intermittently been evident in subsets of Islam in various
geographic areas. That is not to deny the existence of more pacifist strains of
Islam.

It is an offence in English Law contrary to s51 of the
International Criminal Court Act 2001 to kill members of a religious group in
pursuance of a policy of destroying that group.

A similar offence in Scots Law is expressed in s1 of the
Internationla Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001.

It is similarly an offence contrary to International Law. I
refer you to Article 6 of the Rome Statute for further information.

It is clear from the Prime Minister’s statement to the House
of Commons on 7th September 2015 that Mr. Wright played a role in
the targeted killing of at least one member of ISIL.

Hence, I conclude that by virtue of joint enterprise
(English Law) or “art and part” (Scottish Law) that Jeremy Wright MP is party
to “genocide” as defined in Article 6 of the Rome Statute.

I have expressed the suspected crimes by Jeremy Wright MP in
terms of “genocide”.

An alternative charge relating to conduct ancillary to
genocide is also available, both in English Law and Scots Law.

Misconduct in
public office by Jeremy Wright MP

On 25th September 2014 I wrote to Jeremy Wright,
Attorney General, and Robert Buckland MP, Solicitor General, expressing serious
concern that the proposed military action in Iraq was “terrorism” in UK Law.

See the enclosed copy of my letter to Mr. Wright and Mr.
Buckland.

Mr. Wright concealed from Parliament and the British Public
that acts of terrorism (in the meaning of s1 Terrorism Act 2000) were
inevitable with respect to the proposed military action in Iraq.

The terrorism which Mr. Wright dishonestly concealed
included British Military Terrorism and US Military Terrorism.

The foregoing indicates why I believe that Mr. Wright
misconducted himself with respect to the concealment of inter alia British Military Terrorism.

However, it also seems to me that Mr. Wright may have
misconducted himself with respect to the premeditated killing of Reyaad Khan.

If Mr. Wright failed to consider the issue of how domestic
Law might apply to the premeditated killing of Reyaad Khan he failed to act in
accordance with what might reasonably be expected of a oompetent Attorney
General in so spectacular a fashion as
to constitute misconduct in public office.

Alternatively, if Mr. Wright was aware that the killing of
Reyaad Khan might be unlawful in domestic Law and he acquiesced in the process
of the kangaroo court that decided to kill Mr. Khan then the failure on the
part of Mr. Wright is one of integrity.

The failure of Mr. Wright and/or the Prime Minister to
inform Parliament and the British Public that the killing of Reyaad Khan was
unlawful seems to me to be further reason to consider that Mr. Wright
misconducted himself in public office.

Terrorism offences
by Jeremy Wright MP

British military action against ISIL meets the definition of
terrorism set out in s1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

As indicated earlier, the effect of the Coronation Oath of
1953 is to bind the Sovereign and hence H.M. Government with respect to Law.

I conclude that British military action against ISIL is
“terrorism” and that multiple terrorism-related offences have been committed by
Jeremy Wright MP and many others.

For example, the Prime Minister’s statement of 7th
September 2015 makes it clear that Mr. Wright participated in the meeting(s)
which decided to kill Reyaad Khan.

That meeting in my view prepared for a terrorist act, viz the
killing of Reyaad Khan. I conclude that Mr. Wright inter alia committed an offence contrary to Section 5 of the
Terrorism Act 2006.

Given that Mr. Wright’s participation was, in my assessment,
definitive in deciding whether the terrorist act of killing Mr. Khan was
carried out or not, it seems to me that Mr. Wright also committed an offence
contrary to Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

Misconduct in
public office by Robert Buckland MP

Mr. Buckland was a recipient of my letter of 25th
September 2014 which was addressed jointly to Mr. Wright and Mr. Buckland.

Mr. Buckland was, in my estimation, party to the deceiving
of Parliament and the British Public by the Prime Minister with respect to the
proposed military action in Iraq, specifically British Military Terrorism and
US Military Terrorism were concealed.

Distribution

This letter is a public document.

I am copying this letter to Jeremy Wright MP, Attorney
General. I do so in order that he may have a further opportunity carefully to
consider the concerns that I express in this letter.

I am also copying this letter to David Anderson QC, the
Government’s Independent (sic) Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation for his
information and consideration, not least in the context of my letter to him
dated 18th November 2015.

Which Police Force
should investigate?

The suspected murder and genocide by Mr. Wright can, by
quirk of Law, be assessed under either Scots Law or English Law.

Similarly, in my understanding, Mr. Wright’s suspected
offences contrary to Section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006 and Section 56 of the
Terrorism Act 2000 can be investigated in either jurisdiction, but
investigation under English Law might be a better fit.

The suspected misconduct in public office by Mr. Wright and
Mr. Buckland are, in my estimation, matters for English Law.

Given that Police Scotland are already assessing related
matters, as they apply to David Cameron MP and Michael Fallon MP, it may be
expedient for the National Crime Agency to ask Police Scotland to investigate
on behalf of the National Crime Agency the suspected crimes by Mr. Wright and
Mr. Buckland contrary to English Law.

The decision as to which Police force investigates the
suspected crimes of Mr. Wright and Mr. Buckland is open to discretion.

The decision as to whether or not to investigate lacks any
such discretionary element in my view.

Actions requested
of you

I ask that each addressee promptly acknowledges receipt of
this letter.

I also ask that URGENT action is taken to avoid any
continuation and/or repetition of the following suspected crimes:

On 7th September 2015 the Prime Minister David Cameron announced that the Royal Air Force had, on 21st August 2015, killed two British citizens, Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin and a third unnamed person in a drone strike.

A key question in my view is whether David Cameron and Michael Fallon committed the offence of murder in Scots Law.

Below is my letter of 13th November 2015 to Police Scotland.

In Scots Law there is a concept of "art and part" which is broadly similar to the notion of "joint enterprise" in English Law.

On the basis of the doctrine of "art and part" I believe that David Cameron and Michael Fallon committed murder on 21st August 2015.

Here is the text of the letter to Police Scotland:

13th November 2015

To:

Chief Constable Sir Stephen House

ACC Malcolm Graham

Police Scotland

[By email]

Dear Chief Constable and ACC Graham,

British Military
Action in Iraq and Syria

The murders on 21st August 2015 of Reyaad Khan,
Ruhul Amin and another by David Cameron MP, Michael Fallon MP and others

Offences contrary to Section 1 of the International Criminal
Court (Scotland) Act 2001 by David Cameron MP, Michael Fallon MP and
others

Offences contrary to Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000 by
David Cameron MP, Michael Fallon MP and others

I write to report to you as Chief Constable and to Assistant
Chief Constable Malcolm Graham suspected serious crimes in connection with the
killing on 21st August 2015 of Reyaad Khan, Ruhul Amin and another
unnamed individual by the Royal Air Force.

It seems to me that you each have a duty to ensure that
these suspected crimes are thoroughly investigated.

The issues which these killings raise are extensive and
complex and, in my estimation at least, are likely to constitute one or more of
the criminal offences listed in the heading of this letter.

Questions of jurisdiction arise and I will attempt to deal
with those later in this letter.

The facts

On or around 5th September 2014 David Cameron MP
indicated to the media that it was the policy of his Government to “destroy or
degrade ISIL”.

On 7th September 2015 Mr. Cameron made a
statement to the House of Commons (recorded in the House of Commons Hansard for
that date) in which he disclosed that the Royal Air Force had targeted and
killed Reyaad Khan, resulting in his death and the death of Ruhul Amin and
another unnamed individual.

The statement made by Mr. Cameron does not make it easy to
construct a timeline of events. Parts of Mr. Cameron’s statements are visibly
self-justifying and some, so it seems to me, are dishonest.

However, it is possible to construct an approximate series
of events.

On an undisclosed date UK intelligence operatives (whether
from MI5 and/or MI6 is unclear) identified an alleged threat to some part(s) of
the UK.

The information from the intelligence agencies was
considered by Ministers (and likely others) in the context of some possibly ad hoc subcommittee of the National
Security Council.

Mr. Cameron and Mr. Fallon were named in the Prime
Minister’s statement of 7th September 2015 as being party to the
process.

A decision was taken, should the opportunity arise,
premeditatedly to kill Reyaad Khan.

After what Mr. Cameron stated to be “meticulous planning”,
on 21st August 2015 the RAF carried out the murders of Mr. Khan, Mr.
Amin and another by means of a “precision airstrike”.

The interaction of
National and International Law

In his statement of 7th September 2015 Mr.
Cameron stated that, according to the advice of the Attorney General Jeremy
Wright MP, there was a “clear legal basis for action in International Law.”

Mr. Cameron (and, I assume, Mr. Wright) were silent on the
situation in National Law, whether Scots Law or English Law.

Broadly, my understanding is that for an action to be lawful
it requires to be so in both National Law and in International Law.

My view is that Mr. Cameron and Mr. Wright were silent on
the question as to the application of National Law (whether Scots Law or
English Law) since, in my opinion at least, the premeditated killings of Mr.
Khan, Mr. Amin and the unnamed third victim are clearly murder.

Jurisdiction

It seems to me that with respect to the suspected offences
contrary to section 1 of the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001
and the Terrorism Act 2000 that the respective statutes indicate directly or
implicitly that Police Scotland has jurisdiction wherever those offences may
have been committed.

The situation with respected to suspected murder is somewhat
more complex and/or uncertain in my estimation.

I cannot identify any authority which indicates whether or
not anything in Scots Law claims global jurisdiction with respect to the murder
of a British subject in a manner similar to that given effect in English Law by
Section 9 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

Should Police Scotland have jurisdiction I ask that the
suspected crimes of murder urgently be recorded and investigated.

Should Police Scotland consider that it does not have
jurisdiction with respect to the suspected murders I ask that you ensure that
the suspected crimes are referred to a senior Police officer in a Police force
in England or Northern Ireland where, in my understanding, Section 9 of the
Offences Against the Person Act 1861 applies.

Suspected murders

It is clear from the information given by Mr. Cameron in his
statement of 7th September 2015 that the killing of Reyaad Khan was
a premeditated act by a number of individuals including Mr. Cameron and Mr.
Fallon.

The question which requires to be answered is whether the UK
Government had a lawful basis in UK Law for the killings it carried out on 21st
August 2015.

Not since mediaeval times, so far as I’m aware, has the
Crown claimed the right to kill a citizen who has not had the opportunity to
have a fair trial before a properly constituted Court.

In addition, it is some years since the death penalty was
removed from the penalties which a Court in Scotland or England could impose
for the most serious crimes such as murder.

Mr. Khan, Mr. Amin and the unnamed victim were not tried
before a Court, other than, so it seems, a kangaroo court consisting of some
possibly ad hoc subcommittee of the
UK’s National Security Council.

I can identify no basis in the legal systems of the UK which
gives the State or the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for Defence the
lawful authority to kill a British Citizen.

My conclusion is that Mr. Cameron and Mr. Fallon (together
with others) on 21st August 2015 murdered Reyaad Khan, Ruhul Amin
and an unnamed other.

Given my belief that Mr. Khan, Mr. Amin and another were
murdered I am reporting the suspected crimes to you in your respective roles as
Chief Constable and Assistant Chief Constable of Police Scotland.

Offences contrary
to Section 1 of the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001

Killing of the members of a religious group is an offence in
Scots Law as expressed in Section 1 of the International Criminal Court
(Scotland) Act 2001 and the related Schedule of the Act.

Mr. Cameron’s public statements of September 2014 make it
clear that the UK Government intended to destroy ISIL.

It is clear, not least from the term “Islamic” in the name
Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant that ISIL is, at least arguably, a
religious group.

Part of the application of Mr. Cameron’s intention has been
the killing of members of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

The killings on 21st August 2015 of Reyaad Khan,
Ruhul Amin and the unnamed third victim are merely one expression of Mr.
Cameron’s policy.

In my estimation the UK Government policy, to which Mr.
Cameron and Mr. Fallon subscribe, has resulted in multiple acts by UK
Government Ministers and British military personnel which constitute offences
contrary to Section 1 of the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001.

Section 29 of the International Criminal Court (Scotland)
Act 2001 clearly states the Crown is bound. In Scots Law the Crown is bound.

Should you decide, wrongly in my view, that Police Scotland
does not have jurisdiction the acts of Mr. Cameron and Mr. Fallon comparably
constitute offences contrary to Section 51 of the International Criminal Court
Act 2001.

Section 78 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001
binds the Crown in English Law.

Offences contrary
to Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000

It is clear from Mr. Cameron’s statements that Mr. Khan, Mr.
Amin and the unnamed third victim were killed in pursuance of Mr. Cameron’s
stated policy to destroy and degrade ISIL.

Such killing for a political motive is, as I understand the Law,
“terrorism” as defined in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 wherever such
acts of terrorism may have taken place.

In Mr. Cameron’s statement of 7th September 2015
it is clear that he and Michael Fallon MP directed those acts of terrorism.

I therefore conclude that Mr. Cameron and Mr. Fallon
committed offences contrary to Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

Limitations
inherent in this letter

I do not attempt in this letter to make a case either for
the prosecution or defence as might be expressed in a criminal trial as they
apply to the suspected criminal offences of Mr. Cameron and Mr. Fallon.

I simply state a brief outline of the facts (to the limited
extent that they have currently been disclosed) which cause me to believe that
criminal offences have been committed by David Cameron MP, Michael Fallon MP
and others.

I believe I have provided you, Chief Constable and Assistant
Chief Constable, with sufficient information regarding the prima facie evidence that Mr. Cameron and Mr. Fallon may have committed
one or more of the serious criminal offences enumerated in this letter to
engage your repsective duties promptly to investigate these suspected crimes
and/or, where necessary, to refer one or more of these matters to a Police
force in another part of the United Kingdom.

Referral to the
International Criminal Court

The International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001 created
criminal offences in Scots Law.

However, suspected “genocide” is, so I understand, also a
matter for the International Criminal Court.

I invite Police Scotland and the First Minister (who is a
copy recipient of this letter) to consider whether and how these matters should
be reported to the International Criminal Court.

Distribution

Determining whether or not criminal offences have been
committed is a matter for the Police, in the first instance. However, public
interest in these killings is not confined to that question. Broader political
questions also arise.

I am copying this letter to the First Minister, Nicola
Sturgeon MSP, with respect to the issues relating to possible referral to the
International Criminal Court.

Broader political issues also arise. Accordingly I am
copying this letter to Kevin Brennan MP (Mr. Khan’s constituency MP) and to
Jeremy Corbyn MP, Leader of the Opposition.

I am also copying this letter to my constituency MP, Stuart
Donaldson, and Alex Salmond MP, Foreign Affairs spokesman for the SNP.

I am also submitting a copy of this letter as Written
Evidence to the Human Rights Committee, which is a joint committee of the House
of Commons and House of Lords, in the context of its Inquiry entitled “UK
Government’s policy on the use of drones for targeted killing”.

I am also copying this letter to Chris Coverdale.

Prevention of
crime – prevention of additional murders

As Police officers, Chief Constable and Assistant Chief
Constable, you each have a duty to prevent crime.

Media reports indicate that the UK Government has authorised
the murder of other British subjects as the opportunity arises by means similar
to those used to murder Reyaad Khan, Ruhul Amin and the third unnamed victim.

I ask that as a matter of urgency you take all available
steps to ensure that further murders of a similar kind cannot take place.

Actions expected
of Police Scotland

The issues I have drawn to your attention, Chief Constable
House and Assistant Chief Constable Graham, are of great seriousness,
considerable complexity and of enormous public interest.

I expect that you will, as a matter of urgency, carefully
consider whether Police Scotland has jurisdiction in these important matters
and inform me in writing of your conclusions.

Should, for example with respect to the suspected murders,
consider that jurisdiction cannot lie with Police Scotland I expect that I will
be informed as to which senior Police officer in any other Police force that
you have referred this matter to as a report of suspected crime.

Whether or not you consider that jurisdiction re the
reported suspected crimes lie with Police Scotland I ask you to take all steps
to ensure that Mr. Cameron and Mr. Fallon cannot carry out similar murders in
the future.

I look forward to receiving early written acknowledgement of
this letter indicating that you will carefully assess the matters raised
herein.